HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies Volume 28 Number 1 Ethnicity, Inequality and Politics in Article 2 Nepal No. 1 & 2 6-1-2010 Informal Institutions and Exclusion in Democratic Nepal Mahendra Lawoti Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya Recommended Citation Lawoti, Mahendra. 2010. Informal Institutions and Exclusion in Democratic Nepal. HIMALAYA 28(1). Available at: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya/vol28/iss1/2 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by the DigitalCommons@Macalester College at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Informal Institutions and Exclusion in Democratic Nepal Acknowledgements This paper has improved with the helpful comments of Arjun Guneratne, Pramod Kantha, Anthony Squires, two anonymous reviewers for Himalaya, and feedback received during the Second Annual Himalayan Policy Conference, in October 2007 and the Midwest Political Science Conference, in April 2008. This research article is available in HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya/vol28/iss1/2 MAHENDRA LAWOTI WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND EXCLUSION IN DEMOCRATIC NEPAL Informal institutions, or conventions or codes of behavior, play significant roles in constraining human behavior and have important political consequences. Despite much focus on institutionalism, the role of informal institutions in political behaviors and outcomes has not been scrutinized thoroughly in political science. This paper investigates the contribution of informal institutions to the political exclusion of marginalized groups like Dalits, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi, and women in democratic Nepal (1990-2002). Scholars have pointed out the role of formal institutions like the unitary state and the first past the post electoral method in the political exclusion of these groups in Nepal. However, formal institutions do not account for all the exclusion. Not a single Dalit was nominated to the cabinet during 1990-2002. This was not due to formal restrictions but because of informal norms like the caste system that guide political and social actors’ behavior. In this paper I will discuss various ways informal institutions interacted with formal institutions during the democratic years to produce the political exclusion of marginalized groups. Specifically, I will analyze the role of patriarchy on the exclusion of women, hill nationalism and the exclusion of Madhesi, and caste system and Bahunbad and the exclusion of indigenous nationalities and Dalit. Analyses of informal institutions are important because even if formal institutions are changed, exclusion may still continue because informal institutions persist for long periods. Despite the pervasiveness of informal institutions scholarship on democratization by attempting to and their widespread influence, they have largely explain the continuation of political exclusion after been ignored in the analysis of political behavior democratization begins. In the much accepted and outcomes. Since formal institutions have failed conceptualization of democracy, Dahl (1971) to adequately explain many political behaviors considers inclusion/participation as one of the two and outcomes, informal institutions have begun to dimensions of democratization (the other being attract the attention of political scientists (O’Donnell contestation). Over the years, more countries 1996; Lauth 2000; Helmke and Levitsky 2004). have democratized and more people have obtained Due to the new nature of the subfield, however, the franchise rights (Huntington 1991). However, role of informal institutions, in many issues and despite expansion of adult enfranchisement, many phenomena are yet to be rigorously analyzed. In this ethnic (national, linguistic, religious, caste, racial) paper, I analyze the role of informal institutions in groups and women continue to be excluded from the political exclusion of marginalized groups using governance in countries around the world (Gurr a case study of Nepal during its 1990-02 democratic 2000). Scholars have pointed out that formal years.1 majoritarian institutions like the first past the post This article will engage with, and contribute to (FPTP) electoral system and unitary state structures scholarship in fields of democratization, institutions, exclude minorities even in democracies (Horowitz and Nepal studies. It will contribute to the larger 1994; Lijphart 1977). However, as the Nepali case illustrates below, formal institutions do not explain 1. Nepal’s first experience with democracy was from all levels of exclusion in polities. This paper will 1951-60. A monarchical regime ruled from 1960-90 after King demonstrate that informal institutions influence the Mahendra dismissed an elected government in 1960. Democracy behavior of political and social actors, thus helping was restored in 1990 and lasted till October 2002 when King to explain the ironic situation of exclusion from Gyanendra dismissed the elected government. He assumed direct governance despite formal inclusion at the franchise leadership of the executive in 2005 but was forced to give up level. power in April 2006 by a popular movement. The monarchy was The 1990 Constitution of Nepal guaranteed eliminated in 2008 by the newly elected Constituent Assembly. considerable political rights, civil liberties, and InfORMAL INSTITUTIONS / LawOTI 17 individual freedom. Moreover, it ensured reasonably free and Govinda Neupane (2000) showed the overwhelming fair, periodic elections based on universal adult franchise. dominance of the CHHE and Newar in twelve influential What then explains the wide and deep level of political arenas in 1999: the executive branch, parliament, the exclusion that continued in the polity? I begin by briefly judiciary, public administration, the security forces, politics reviewing exclusion in democratic Nepal. (i.e. local government and party leadership), leadership of academia, industry and commerce, civil society, and cultural EXCLusION IN DEMOCRATIC NEPAL, 1990-2002 associations. Jointly the CHHE and Newar were 36.37 percent Nepal, which is a country of more than sixty ethnic of the population according to the 2001 census but held 80 groups, one hundred languages, and half a dozen religions, percent of the State’s leadership positions in important arenas has witnessed exclusion, discrimination, and domination (e.g. executive, legislature, judiciary, public administration and of various groups in many spheres including socio-cultural, security elite) in 1999. Their domination included holding 95 economic and political. The caste hill Hindu elite (CHHE percent of the position in the civil administration, 91 percent or CHHEM when women are omitted) which consists of the of the judiciary, 80 percent of positions in the constitutional “upper” caste Chhetri, Bahun, Thakuri, Sanyasi and “upper” commissions, 72 percent of positions in the cabinet, and a caste Newar of the hills,2 are numerically a minority; yet, 68 percent representation in Parliament (both houses). Even they overwhelmingly dominate the political, social, and the relatively progressive realms like academia, the media, economic realms in Nepal. The indigenous nationalities and civil society had a negligible presence of marginalized (adibasi janajati), Dalit (the traditional ‘untouchable’ Hindus) groups. The combined CHHE and Newar dominance in and Madhesi3 (residents of the plains who share culture with the leadership of professional bodies of cultural, academic, North Indian societies) collectively constitute more than two science-technology, and civil society was 95, 89, 87, and 91 thirds of the population but were discriminated against and percent respectively. Overall, the hill Dalit (7.09 % population) excluded from various socio-political realms.4 had 0.3 percent representation in the twelve sectors while the indigenous nationalities (21.85% - not including Newar 2. The Newar, a multi-caste indigenous group from the Kathmandu and Tarai indigenous nationalities) and Madhesi (32.33% - Valley, make up 5.48 percent of the population and have enjoyed highly including Madhesi Dalit and Tarai indigenous nationalities) disproportionate access to socio-economic and political power, mostly by the had 7 and 11 percent representation respectively in the twelve ‘upper castes’ within the group. However, as a group it has faced linguistic influential sectors (Neupane 2000). and other cultural discrimination. Likewise, women were severely underrepresented in the 3. CHHE, indigenous nationalities, and Dalit were 30.89, 36.31 cabinet and the Supreme Court had no female justices during (including Newar) and 14.99 percent of the population respectively in the 1990s. The representation of women in the Parliament 2001. Madhesi are 12.30 percent if only non-Dalit caste Hindus are and central committees of major political parties never counted and they are 32.29 percent when Tarai indigenous nationalities crossed six and ten percent respectively. Representation in (8.96 %), Tarai Dalit (6.74 %), and Muslim (4.29